) 619 
.N32 
^opy 1 



619 
N32 
opy 1 



THE-FOLLOWING-A 
UNITED-NATION^ 



AN • ADDRESS DELIVERED BY 
HONORABLE • CHARLES • NAGEL • 
BEEORE • THE GERMANISTI.C 
SOCIETY • or ■ CHICAGO • ON • THE • 
29TH . OE • EEBRUARY • I9I6 * • • 



j>.. --. 



OCT 86,917 



^•■^ ■WASHINGTON 



Number Sixteen 






FOREWORD 

The following series of pamphlets, dealing with questions 
relative to the European war, has been issued by the Germanistic 
Society for the purpose of serving the cause of truth, of correcting 
misrepresentation, and of exemplifying the spirit of objectivity 
and fair play. 

No. 1 — Germany and the Peace of Europe 

By Prof. Ferdinand Schevill. 

No. 2 — The Causes of the European Conflict 

By Prof. John W. Burgess. 

No. 3 — How Germany Was Forced Into War 

By Raymond E. Swing. 

No. 4 — The Session of the German Reichstag 

By Prof. Alex. R. Hohlfeld. 

No. 5 — Germany's Fateful Hour 

By Pi-of. Kuno Franclte. 

No. 6 — German "Atrocities" and International Law 

By Prof. James G. McDonald. 

No. 7 — "Militarism" and "The Emperor," the latter 

By Prof. John W. Burgess. 

No. 8 — The Evolution of the German Empire 

By Prof. Geo. L. Scherger. 

No. 9 — German Resources and the War 

By Dr. Bemhard Demburg 

No. 10 — Germany and England, the Real Issue 

By Dr. Bemhard Demburg. 

No. 11 — Russian Diplomacy and the War 

By Prof. James W. Thompson. 

No. 12 — German "War Makers" 

By Noel Sargent. 

No. 13 — Nationalism in Europe 

By Prof. Dr. Franz Boas. 

No. 14— Ry Their Works Ye Shall Know Them 

By Alfred Hoyt Granger. 

No. 15 — The Destruction of Louvain 

By Edwin Emerson, 

No. 16— The Following— A United Nation 

By Honorable Chas. Nagel. 

Copies of these pamphlets may be obtained from the office 
of the Society at the following prices: 

Single copies $ 0.05 

10 copies (assorted) 0.25 

100 copies (assorted) 1.50 

1000 copies (assorted) F. O. B. Chicago 10.00 

THE GERMANISTIC SOCIETY 
OF CHICAGO 

Lojiis Guenzel, Recording Secretary 
111.^. Washington St., Chicago, 111. 






The Following — A United Nation 

By 
HONORABLE CHARLES NAGEL 

Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: That I accept your invi- 
tation to speak under the auspices of this Society as a very great 
compliment, I need hardly say. That compliment is accentuated by 
the circumstance that I have endeavored on several occasions in dif- 
ferent parts of this country to discuss questions somewhat akin to 
the one to vv^hich I propose to address myself this evening. 

I need not state to you that at this time I do not think it worth 
while to speak upon any subject that is not close to our hearts, and 
that, in my judgment, should be close to the hearts of every American 
citizen. The questions are necessarily delicate ; difficult to discuss. 
It is easy to exaggerate and to indulge in extravagant statements. It 
is not easy, as Pitt at one time said in the English parliament, to be 
severe and at the same time to be parliamentary. 

I do not propose to indulge in criticism of our official life. I may 
dififer here and there, and, indeed I do, but I regard it as extremely 
dangerous in matters of international importance to indulge in whole- 
sale criticism, because there are many things that we cannot know, 
and we must trust that ultimately wisdom will point the way. In 
other words, I propose to address myself more especially to those 
influences in our country which seek to mold that public opinion, 
which, after all, decides the course of official life. This is a republic, 
and the people speak. I, for my part, have endeavored and shall en- 
deavor to make some opposition to influences which to my mind have 
been all too active, to force the administration into a position that 
in my judgment cannot be justified. 

What, in my opinion, we need above all things in this country is 
to consider our own affairs. We have troubles enough of our own. 
And the foundation of a fair consideration of our own questions, in- 
fluenced no doubt by sympathy and by opinion of foreign relations, 
depends more upon a proper understanding, a spirit of toleration and 
sympathy among ourselves, than upon anything else. There has 
been a painful absence of willingness to remember that we are a new 
people — an amalgamated people^"— composed of representatives of all 
the nations of the earth; and that there can be no real union, no 

3 



people of the United States, unless we bear with each other; unless 
we seek to understand each other; unless we endeavor to form opin- 
ions made up of the sympathies and judgments of all our people, to 
bind and hold us together for the support of our own country. (Ap- 
plause.) 

This has been impressed upon me more of late than ever before ; 
more especially by all the discussions we now hear about prepared- 
ness. I wonder how many people really appreciate that preparedness 
cannot be brought about by discussions at luncheons and at conven- 
tions; that it takes something that goes down deep, below declama- 
tion, below candidacy, below law, down into the hearts and souls of 
the men, women and children of a nation. At present we seem to 
be talking more especially of military preparedness. For years I have 
believed that there should be more military preparedness in this 
country than there is, and I believe it now. For years I have con- 
tended that military preparedness is not necessarily an unmixed cost, 
but that in real preparedness there is involved a strengthening of 
men and women, of their sense of responsibility to the state and to 
each other that makes up a hundredfold for all the cost that is in- 
curred. (Applause.) But, while we speak of this preparedness, let 
us remember what we thought of it a year and a half ago. Then we 
heard little but denunciation of militarism ; and now its praises are 
heard in every utterance. (Applause.) There is not a note sounded 
today in this country demanding military preparation that is not 
based upon the experience of the country that we denounced. Of 
course, we do not call it the German system. We call it the Swiss 
system, because it sounds better. (Applause.) Military preparedness 
in that sense means a preparation from childhood up, a bringing up 
with devotion to country, to something else but self, to an outside 
good. It means a devotion, a self-abnegation which we need more 
in this country than anything else. (Applause.) But, it is not mili- 
tary training alone that we need if we are to have real preparedness. 
That lesson, it seems to me, we have also learned by this time by 
watching the countries on the other side. 

True preparedness means an economic system as a foundation. 
That we have known for years ; at least those of us who read. We 
did not have to read more than thoughtful English books to know 
that Germany has excelled, because she adopted years ago an eco- 
nomic system that reached far beyond the political remedies with 
which Great Britain and the United States have sought to cure their 
ills. I am not a convert to that view now, because I have stated it 
again and again in public speech tcojg before this war. I have said 
again and again that we need npt%imitate Germany's system, but 

4** 



that we must evolve a system that will bring about the same results 
if we propose in the long run to compete successfully for foreign 
trade. Englishmen have said that in their country; we have said it 
here; but we have continued to meddle with political remedies as 
cure-alls, in the hope that statute or resolution would cure our com- 
plaints. We have failed to realize that preparedness means a com- 
plete system — military, economic and human. 

In the days when we talked about conservation in this country — 
as we always talk about one thing at a time, not remembering that 
all these things hang together — many of us approved the policy to 
conserve coal, copper and timber, but insisted that above all things 
we need the conservation of men, women and children in this coun- 
try. That is what we need now. (Applause.) 

That is the whole scheme of preparedness. If you ask today 
what is the source of Germany's strength — for no one now doubts 
that she has demonstrated her power — we find that it is the com- 
pleteness of her system ; a system of which, as I have said before, 
the military is nothing but the point of the arrow, and the industrial 
and social scheme is the shaft that drives the arrow. That is what 
we need. (Applause.) 

She has evolved a system for the protection of her men, women 
and children, of which we have no conception. We think we can 
do it by statute. We think that we can remedy law's omissions by 
private charity. No doubt we can do much, but it will take a long 
time before we reduce it to an acceptable system. In the meantime 
Germany has done one thing, and this is, that she has found a way 
to protect men and women without coddling them. We do not know 
how to protect without making weak and dependent. She has solved 
the problem which, to my mind, is the greatest problem of modern 
times. (Applause.) 

I am not talking about the foreign war; I am considering the 
evidences that the foreign war has brought to the attention of all 
people; and I am only repeating what I have said again and again 
years before the war. We need understanding of these things; we 
need toleration; we need a willingness to accept what is shown us; 
we need forbearance; we must learn to appreciate what this country 
has done, appreciate what that country has done, and, taking the 
best of all, make it our own; eliminate as best we can the vices of 
all the people that come to us, and accept the virtues, and justify the 
republic. 

Let me illustrate. I know there have been extravagant things 
said on all sides, and I may claim at least the right to say that I 
have done what I could to allay them. I do not want to arouse dis- 

5 



cord, but neither will I take my orders from people who seek to 
make me prove my citizenship and my loyalty because I am not of 
English descent. (Applause.) I am trying to be neutral, and I do 
not want to be hectored by men who boast of their unneutrality. I 
am speaking of the forces that are trying to compel us to take posi- 
tion upon a foreign issue with respect to which we ought to be 
neutral. 

We are told by distinguished men at this time that our country 
should have protested, perhaps intervened, on account of Belgium. 
Why is this said now? Because we are in the year of a presidential 
election, and the attempt is made to excite passion for the purpose 
of tliat election. That is all. Time enough to discuss those questions 
when the war is over. Little was said when we failed to protest. Why 
discuss it in that spirit now, if it is not to excite passion and prejudice 
for a present purpose ? 

If we must discuss it, why do we not remember that Korea was 
taken ; and ask why we did not protest. I know it is said today that 
Korea yielded; but I think it is safe to add that she did not yield 
until she knew that we would not act. Why, to balance the scales 
and to let the protest, on account of the infraction of international 
law (if it is to be so construed), come with dignity, why do we not 
speak of Greece? (Applause.) In other words, if our obligation to 
protest because of the interference with small states by greater 
powers is to have any force, moral or otherwise, impartiality must 
be the foundation of our conduct. If the complaint is confined to 
Belgium, it leads to the inevitable suspicion that much of the cry 
for Belgian relief is based less upon sympathy for Belgians than it 
is upon animosity for another country. (Applause.) 

We are told that a great opportunity was lost when the protest 
was not made. I think an equal opportunity was lost when we did 
not join Holland in protesting against the infraction of international 
laws as to blockade and the shipments of non-contraband goods. 
Holland protested, not alone because of the injury which she suf- 
fered, but because she said that she thought it was her place to 
speak in the name of international law, and to protest against the 
lowering of the standards of the law between nations. That was the 
time for us to protest, if protests were to be entered and if we were 
disposed to take a dignified place among nations. 

But since we speak of opportunities neglected, in my opinion 
one of the greatest opportunities that was ever lost in this country 
was when we failed at the beginning of the war to appeal to all the 
people of the United States to regard the suffering on the other side 
without reference to race or country. When we failed to extend our 

6 



sympathy and our charity to all the sufferers alike ; and to make all 
our contributions to the American Red Cross, instead of promoting 
conflicting collections in this country which have aroused the passions 
in our midst. That was the time and the opportunity to bring our 
people to a mutual understanding of each other, to create sympathy, 
consideration, appreciation and respect ; and to base upon an appeal to 
all our people for all the sufferers of the earth the strongest incen- 
tive for a united people of the United States that was ever placed 
within our reach. (Applause.) That opportunity was lost; and we 
had as many charity collections in this country as there were peoples 
fighting on the other side. We fought each other, as it were, in the 
name of charity on this side. For one whole year I contended that 
every contribution should be made to the American Red Cross, trust- 
ing to it to make fair division. The President of the United States 
is president of that organization, and could have guaranteed fairness. 
But, at the end of the year, we were bound to acknowledge that the 
idea could not be carried out. Then I concluded, inasmuch as I had 
been thrown out of the front door, I would come back through the 
kitchen, and contribute to various collections as long as my money 
holds out. I propose to be neutral. (Applause.) I think that is the 
test of neutrality. In St. Louis we have a Belgium Relief now. I 
am chairman of it. French, Belgians, Jews and Germans work together, 
just as Americans should co-operate for a unique cause. They unitedly 
aid a people who cannot be aided by the invading army ; a people who 
are without materials and work because Great Britain will not let 
materials come in ; with respect to whom both belligerents have, how- 
ever, agreed that any material that we collect on this side shall be 
delivered, and under the concrol of our commission shall be used for 
the civilians alone. That is neutrality. 

There are other conditions that test our attitude. There was 
the wireless decision. Most people have forgotten about that; it is 
so long ago. It was decided that the wireless and the cable do not 
stand upon the same ground, because the wireless can communicate 
with the ships out at sea, and cannot be controlled; while a cable 
cannot communicate at sea, and therefore can be controlled. Of 
course, it never suggested itself to anybody that a cable message 
might be sent to this country and then sent by wireless from here. 
But that is beginning to dawn upon some people. Another argument 
was made that the cable was subject to destruction because it could 
be reached and cut; and a wireless station could not. I never saw 
the difficulty, excepting that somehow the enemy did not seem to 
be able to reach the wireless station. In both cases the stations on 
this side were secure upon our soil, and the stations on the other 
side were subject to destruction by the enemy. The allies had the 
same privilege to destroy wireless stations that they had to destroy 
the German cable, or that the Germans now have to destroy English 
cables or stations. The only difference was one of achievement. 
That is not a good distinction because it rests upon difference of con- 
ditions and not upon principle. It seemed to me that we were rather 

7 



positive in our decision, and it seems surprising to me that, right or 
wrong, there was not more discussion about so novel a question. 

But granting the correctness of the decision, inasmuch as the 
cable depends upon our shores for protection, and is here by our 
leave, it seems to me it ought to be used impartially and freely. I 
am not speaking of the censored reports from the other side, because 
if they were not censored there they probably would be on this side. 
I am speaking of private communications, which should be free to 
go over, because the cable was instituted for that purpose, and it 
should now meet every purpose that was contemplated at the time 
it was laid. If there is any difficulty about this use — and you know 
there are difficulties, you know that many messages do not go over 
although they are paid for, and no money is returned — it appeared to 
me that then at least the mails should be guaranteed. If the mails 
between neutral countries are interfered with, then we are free, in 
my judgment, to invoke a power very much in the nature of an 
embargo, and to say that the cable shall not be used until the mails 
are free. That power we have. (Applause.) 

Take the ammunition decision. I am not going to discuss the 
original question. I never did understand, however, why, if we had 
to go on selling ammunition because we had started to do it, we 
should now provide infinitely more than we were manufacturing when we 
started. It looked to me as though we were driving the principle to 
an extreme. But if we were compelled to abide by the conduct which 
we had adopted at the beginning of the war (and there is some au- 
thority for that), then in my judgment we should also have stood 
by our decision made at the beginning of the war with respect to 
foreign loans. We said such loans would be improper, and we 
changed our mind and permitted unparalleled loans to be made for 
war purposes; and we have never justified that conduct in the light 
of the decision we made with respect to ammunition. 

Why should the people sit by and permit these things to pass 
without reflection? Is it right simply because somebody interested 
says so? And have I not the right as a citizen of the United States 
to question; have I not the right to think? And if I have, is not 
the duty imposed upon me to speak? Foreign loans! We were told 
at the time that they were made for the extension of foreign trade. 
We had great schemes then for the conquest of trade that other coun- 
tries were bound to lose. What has it come to? We are still giving 
the glad hand to South America and getting little business ; and we 
are still doing an abnormally profitable business with our old friends. 
That is what we are doing. One concern makes a showing of $54,- 
000,000 profits on ammunition in one year, and it is blandly said that 
part of the dividends are being paid in English and French bonds. 
That is foreign trade with a vengeance, is it not? Have we not the 
right to reflect upon these things? 

There is the submarine question. I do not want to discuss at 
length the right or wrong of a question which is now pending and 
a decision upon which question is imminent. But I want to call at- 
tention to one phase of it which, in my judgment, is very important. 
It is perfectly natural that there should be a difference of opinion 

8 



about that issue. There is a great difference of opinion about it in 
this country, and I know of no point of controversy with respect to 
which so many sympathizers with Great Britain are of the opinion 
that we are wrong in our contention. It is very remarkable how 
many men believe that we are really not justified in insisting upon 
our position. In other words, there is an honest difference of opinion. 
Now what are the facts? It is said that merchantmen have a right 
to carry guns. That probably was the law; and it was based upon 
the right to protect themselves against pirates. It was not con- 
templated with respect to times of war with recognized enemies. The 
privilege was not used before this war. Merchantmen did not carry 
guns. The French do not carry them now. They do not seem to 
meet pirates anywhere. 

Churchill, Lord of the Admiralty, said, in 1913, that he was 
making arrangements with navigation companies to rebuild their 
merchantmen in such fashion as to make provision for guns, in order 
that during war they might be armed; and that he proposed to pro- 
vide for the ammunition and accompanying equipment for those guns. 
That was his statement in 1913. The ships were so changed; and 
the comment of the author upon whom I rely, is that it is obvious 
that the idea of using merchantmen in time of war in connection with 
the navy evidently is not obsolete. That is the statement. 

Now merchantmen are armed and the doubt is whether this is done 
for offensive or defensive purposes. That is a pretty nice question. 
It all turns upon who is to draw first. Anybody who has read a 
Western story, with gunmen in it, knows just what that means. 
And no wonder people have difficulty in determining what is offensive 
and what is defensive. Is it to depend in each case upon the particu- 
lar conduct of the submarine after it shows itself, or upon the pos- 
sibility of offensive attack by the merchantman upon general orders 
given, or upon a general policy pursued, or upon any other of many 
possible conditions? The difficulty, to my mind, is that we are in- 
volved in interminable confusion. It is extremely difficult, if that is 
to be the test, to say what is offensive and what is defensive. In 
every case I should think we would have a controversy, because 
each side would contend for its position, one saying he did not mean 
to take the off'ensive, and the other saying he undoubtedly did; 
with the disadvantage that probably one will be at the bottom of 
the sea, and we will sit in judgment. But that is not the real ques- 
tion that concerns me. The question that presents itself to me is 
this: Where is the cause for severance of relations with a country 
because of a dift'erence of that kind? Suppose we cannot agree upon 
it. We insist that the submarine should not attack, and Germany 
insists that she will ; one saying that a merchantman so armed is 
not a part of the armed force, and the other saying that it is ; one 
relying upon report, and the other saying that he relies upon experi- 
ence. Where is the cause for war, or for severance of relations? 
No attack is aimed at us. It is perfectly obvious that Germany is 
endeavoring in every way to yield, to comply with our wishes. It is 
altogether clear that the government of Germany does not want 
difficulty with us. And it is beyond dispute that any misfortune 



that any citizen of ours may meet upon a ship of that kind is a 
mere incident to the warfare between two other countries. Just 
precisely as a citizen of ours would suffer the consequences if he 
traveled on a train in the war zone. 

During the war I traveled from Switzerland up to Frankfort, as 
close to the Rhine as I could, I was far from the battle line, but I 
was with soldiers all the time ; some going out, and sometimes 
wounded men coming back. Of course, I realized that a train of 
that kind would be a proper subject of attack. What is the dif- 
ference in principle, if our citizen travels upon a ship of that descrip- 
tion, conceding that we may be found to be right ultimately? It presents 
a real difference of opinion between two countries. The consequences 
are not aimed at us ; but they are an unfortunate incident of active 
warfare. How can we base so grave a decision with respect to a 
friendly power upon an act that lacks all intent to injure us? 
(Applause.) 

To defer the dispute would be quite in keeping with our attitude 
throughout this war. We have deferred question after question. We 
have protested, and protested vigorously, but we have again and 
again postponed action because we could not come to an agreement with 
another country. We say in this instance that this is a recognized 
international rule; that it has always been the practice for merchant- 
men to carry guns if they wanted to. But other rules have been 
established and recoj^^nized that are not nov/ respected. Take the 
simple question of the blockade. No such blockade as is now prac- 
ticed has ever been known in history. We protest, but we do not 
do more. Because of a difference of opinion between two countries, I 
take it. 

It has always been recognized that a neutral power had the 
right to ship to a friendly nation engaged in war foodstuffs for 
civilians. They were recognized as non-contraband goods. That is 
well admitted, and Great Britain and the United States particularly 
agreed upon it. In the Boer war Lord Salisbury said that any food- 
stuffs sent to a belligerent cannot be intercepted unless it is shown 
that they are intended for the military force. That vvas his decision. 
In the Japanese war Landsdowne took the same position, in equally 
strong language, because Japan undertook to intercept rice. Great 
Britain's protest was based upon the ground that the shipment could 
not be confiscated unless it was made to appear that it was intended 
for the army. And he went further; he said that the decision of a 
prize court would not be conclusive unless it were shown that that 
decision was in line with the recognized principles of international 
law. 

Secretary Hay, in answer to our ambassador, in a lengthy state- 
ment, laid down the same rule absolutely and unequivocally. So, if 
we are to insist upon the law as it stood at the beginning of the 
war, why, by all means, let us do it. What I am contending for is 
impartiality and neutrality, and the same attitude with respect to 
all countries. I insist upon it in justice to the countries at war, with 
all of whom we have been friendly, and I trust may continue to be 
friendly. I insist upon it in justice to our own people. We are a 

10 



new people, and we must have regard for the sympathies, sometimes 
the intensity of feeling, and the judgment of our own citizenship, 
and must not permit a suspicion or belief to grow that we are not 
in all things absolutely just. (Applause.) 

But the argument is made, and I think that is largely traced 
to feeling, sad as the instances are, that one life lost at sea through 
a disregard of our rights under international law, is worth more 
than all the commerce that we may sacrifice by a disregard of our 
rights. I agree to that, but let us look at it fairly. However tragic 
the loss of life, the real question after all remains: are we in the 
right? And whatever the conclusion, there are some Americans even 
in Germany; citizens of the United States. They had a right to 
believe when they remained there that we would insist upon our right 
to send foodstuffs to that country for civilians. If these Americans 
are subjected to hardship they suffer because of our acquiescence in 
a disregard of an admitted rule of law. It is probable that some of 
those American citizens have babies who depend for their lives upon 
the milk that we, contrary to law, are prevented from sending over 
for their protection. (Applause.) 

I speak of these things, I repeat, to show that there are two 
sides to these questions. That it will not do to meet a man who 
asks questions with impatience and intolerance ; and after ascertain- 
ing how he spells his name to ask him whether he is loyal to his 
own country. (Applause.) I remember the Civil War, and I do 
not feel that I have to prove my loyalty. I had a bitter taste of it. 
Not old enough to be a soldier, I nevertheless got full measure of 
hardship's experience. I am speaking of the general attitude. There 
are a great many Americans in the armies of the Allies ; and very 
few Americans in the German and Austrian armies. Why this 
impatience? They have a right to go; but there is no reason why 
we should make heroes of Americans who fight on one side against 
the other, when our country professes to be neutral. It shows the 
attitude. Thousands of men have gone over. We speak of them 
proudly in this country ; with distinction. I am not complaining 
of it, but why denounce the sympathy of other people who are not 
doing more than expressing their opinions and their beliefs? We 
need more toleration and fairness of mind. 

Now, we are approaching a more exciting time. We are less 
impatient than we were three months ago about hyphenated citi- 
zens. There is going to be an election in this country, and the effect 
is apparent. I do not rejoice in it; I am sorry that it is so. But I pre- 
dicted it. I appeal to my friends not to be offended, not to indulge in 
"Empfindlickkeit ;" but trust that the difficulties will all blow over. 

Personally I do not believe in the hyphenated name ; at least, not 
in politics. I have always said that I am a Gemian-American, if you 
v/ant to know where I hail from. But if you want to know what I am as 
a citizen of the United States, then I am not German-American, but an 
American. That is my view. (Applause.) I have always believed that 
there is very great dan.f^er in political organizations of a dual description, 
and that the transition is too easy from the social to the political status. 

11 



There is only one kind of political system in the United States, 
and that, for the present, is a republic. We ought to bear in mind, 
all of us, the Anglo-American just as well as the Irish, Italian, Ger- 
man, and so on, that there is only one kind of citizenship in the 
United States if we propose to get along with each other. But the 
symptoms are multiplying that there will be less said about the 
hyphen, and that it will be more respected. 

Even now we have distinguished candidates who are giving 
exhibitions of that trend. Before one audience they eat goulash, and 
before another they eat spaghetti ; and I have no doubt but that they 
will come to Sauerkraut in June. Not because they like it, but because 
they want to do something for the delectation of the spectators. 
These gentlemen are not, in my judgment, showing appreciation of 
the sweet customs of different peoples, for which there is much 
room. We might well unite the customs and traditions of the dif- 
ferent peoples and mold something out of it stronger and better for 
ourselves than any one nation has. That sort of respect and ap- 
preciation makes for the best. But, unhappily, there is disposition 
now to appeal to something that borders on prejudice; to indulge 
in something that is like flattery. Where the hyphenated citizen 
was denounced only a few months ago — I believe it was three months 
ago — he will be in very great danger, by the end of October of this 
year, of having conferred upon him the order "pour le merite." That 
is not for good. We do not want that in this country. We want 
to avoid it. It is for that reason that I gave offense to some of my 
fellowmen by insisting that I would not join any political organiza- 
tion that bore a hyphenated name. It was not a new position. It has 
been my position as long as I have been a voter. I have belonged 
to German singing societies, yes ; although I have to admit while 
they let me join, they did not let me sing, because I am never in 
tune. I have not, however, belonged to political organizations based 
upon distinct foreign nationality. Great exception has been taken 
in the past. I was never assailed as bitterly in my life as I was 
while Secretary of Commerce and Labor by the German-American 
Alliance. They did not understand my position, in my judgment. I 
follow the same conviction now, because a contrary course does not 
make for union of all our people, but does make for friction among 
our people. If you share my view you must, of course, assert your 
convictions upon public questions ; and, to repeat, that does not 
mean that a man of German, or French, or Dutch, or Irish descent 
must take his orders from somebody who insists that he can trace 
his ancestry to England. That is not a true interpretation of United 
States citizenship. This is not another kind of England. This is the 
United States. I have the right to recall that my people came from 
that section in which the German tribes lived at the time when 
Tacitus wrote about them. That goes pretty far back ; and I have no 
reason to be ashamed. Those tribes were known for their respect 
for women; that is a good attribute even today. They were known 
for singing religious songs when they went into battle ; that charac- 
terizes them today. It is pretty good old stock, and I wonder why 
people of English descent are so willing to forget where they really 

12 



come from. (Applause.) I do not say that in a spirit of criticism, 
but in perfect good nature. There are no men in my acquaintance 
who have had more admiration for Great Britain than I. In fact, I 
was brought up to cherish our institutions that we trace to Great 
Britain. English is the language of our Nation, and every citizen 
should speak it and read it. I have looked to her statesmen for 
many of the best things that I have treasured in public life. I treas- 
ure them now. In my office and in my study at home the pictures 
of great Englishmen are on the wall, and I would not take them 
down, because I think I am true to their principles today. But I 
am challenged because I venture to doubt whether some modern 
Englishmen are in all respects true to those principles now. 

Is my loyalty and citizenship here to be tested by my willingness 
to disavow not only my own descent, but my admiration for any 
people but one? Why, there are some persons who would base an 
amalgamation of two countries upon the fact that they speak the 
same language. That is like saying that you may join that amalgama- 
tion provided you are ignorant of all languages but one; and that is 
a very sad plight to be in. The fact is, that this country suffers 
from nothing so much as from its dependence upon one language. 
(Applause.) If we had more people in this country who could read 
several languages, English, French, German, Italian, or any other 
language, we would have been familiar with foreign conditions to 
such an extent that it would have been impossible for us to be 
surprised as we were by the war news upon which we are fed. 

We are constantly told that anyone who can weigh evidence 
must conclude that the cause of the Allies is just. But I submit 
that we have before us not a case of weighing evidence so much as 
we have a cause for taking and understanding testimony. Because 
of our dependence upon one language we started with limited in- 
formation ; and we have since then permitted an interested party to 
employ that same language to present and to determine the facts 
for us. 

Now, I am not here to belittle the gravity of our problem in this 
country. I place a very high standard on citizenship, and I admit, 
and I have reason to admit, and know from my experience with the 
immigration question, that there are a great many elements to be 
dealt with in this country that cannot be turned into citizenship by 
naturalization papers alone. That is the greatest mistake in the 
world. My criticism upon the present Americanization speeches and 
addresses is chiefly that the speakers do not understand that they 
must go beyond and deeper than the paper citizenship. I would 
rather have a good resident who is not a citizen than a bad resident 
who is. The naturalization document does not solve the citizen situa- 
tion. We must go deeper. We are told that we must teach the 
newcomer to understand us. That is true, but he will never under- 
stand us until we understand him. (Applause.) That is the situa- 
tion. It is a tremendous problem — not to be lightly dealt with — and 
if we think that we can do it by mass meetings, and by speeches, and 
by demonstration, we are mistaken. I believe in observing the days 
for celebration, and in hanging out the flag, I believe all those things 

13 



impress people and inspire them. But that alone will not do it. If 
I go through my city on the Fourth of July, as I often have done, I 
have no difficulty in concluding that the houses that bear a United 
States flag of some size, often very small, are generally owned by 
the people v.'ho have been in this country the least number of years. 
That is true. That does not settle the question, although it shows 
the impulse upon which we must build. But you cannot build upon 
impulse successfully unless you invite confidence ; and you cannot 
invite confidence unless you have toleration and understanding. That 
is my idea. There is much to be learned from other countries ; there 
is much brought to this country by newcomers from all the countries ; 
by some more and by some less. The German element has made a 
very substantial contribution in this country, in spite of all that has 
been said of late. We need not dwell upon the customary evidences 
— art, music, literature, philosophy, and so forth. Let the gentlemen 
in the universities quarrel over that now, as they used to agree. 

Take the farmer alone. There is nothing as essential in this 
country as the right-minded men and women who are willing to labor 
upon the soil. That is what we need, men who are not afraid, and 
women who are not afraid to work. Who is doing it? The gentle- 
men who are criticising everybody who has an opinion that they 
do not like? Not for a minute. The farming is done, in the first 
order by the Germans, Swedes, Norwegians, Poles and the Bo- 
hemians ; and, now the Italians. They are the conquerors of the 
soil. They have the richest lands in the country ; the richest counties 
in every state. That is the backbone of all our prosperity. In fact, I 
have sometimes said the trouble with the East is, at least with some 
Eastern cities, that they know too little about the United States. 
When they know what our crop reports are, most of their interest 
is satisfied; and that is not said slightingly or lightly. There is a 
great deal of truth in it. Now it is so easy to communicate with 
other countries that it was found much more easy to communicate 
across the Atlantic than across the United States ; and much more 
attractive. There is some reason in that ; I think I might have found 
it so myself ; many of us would. But that does not destroy the fact 
that this Nation depends upon the men and women who are willing 
to work the soil; and that that force comes from the elements that 
have been mainly criticized. It is that hardy spirit that comes from 
the other side, and largely from Germany, that has pointed the way. 
We have much to learn. As I said, we are acquiring militarism ; we 
have to learn the economic system. We have to learn, above all, the 
system by which men and women are preserved in their strength, 
self-respect, devotion and self-abnegation for the country. That is 
what we have to learn, (Applause.) 

I saw the picture after the war started. I saw some of it in 
Switzerland ; I saw it in Holland ; although those countries were not 
in war, they had much to show. But in Germany I saw a demonstra- 
tion of devotion, of religious devotion to a cause above self such as I 
should have said could not have been shown at this time in the 
world. No question asked by anyone; no complaint, and no hysteria; 
everyone in his or her place. When the men went forward out of the 
fields, the women went into the fields to bring in the crops ; children and 

14 



old people volunteering to help. That spirit may not determine the right 
or wrong of the war; but it is the spirit which is sustaining that nation, 
and without which no nation can be sustained. That is what we have 
to learn. 

But there is another question that presents itself now. This war 
will end sometime, although some ammunition factory owners hope 
that it will not. The opinion which was entertained by so many, that 
this war could end in only one way, is being considerably shaken. I 
do not want any country destroyed ; any civilized nation. That has 
been my hope from the beginning, and it is my hope now. But it 
is a mistake for us to proceed in this country upon the assumption that this 
war must result in a particular way; and it is a mistake for us to 
suppose that we can prosper by having invited the animosity, or 
distrust, of any civilized people. The idea that is prevalent in this 
country now, that we can prosper immediately or later upon the 
misfortune of other nations, is a myth and a falsehood. It is a 
temporary get-rich-quick process, localized, going to a few people, 
and creating distrust and lack of confidence among thousands of 
right-minded people. (Applause.) 

Apart from that, it is for those who feel that the side with which 
they would naturally sympathize has been neglected, to give all the 
support that they can to a rational, reasonable peace when it comes. 
Every country has its conflicts. Great Britain has had its war party, 
and it had great men and women who to this day regret that that 
war was ever declared. Have your respect go out to those people, 
because they acted just as finely as British men and women ever did. 
There were Frenchmen of the same kind. In Germany today there 
is a division of opinion, and there is no question in my mind that 
the government is doing everything in its power to sustain friendly 
relations with this Nation ; to preserve the record of over a century, 
in which Germany has in every instance stood by the United States. 
Do not help create conditions in this country that will make it dif- 
ficult to renew or to preserve and to maintain those relations. We 
cannot do without them and they cannot do without us. That kind 
of a division after the war would be a world calamity. This involves 
more than this Nation or that, because you must remember Sweden, 
Norway and Holland, all Teutonic nations, and neutral, play a very 
large part in this situation, and have some very strong convictions. 
That has to be regarded. We cannot serve the general cause better 
than by keeping our own heads. Not by hiding our opinions, not by 
apologizing for our position ; but not, on the other hand, by indulging 
in hasty criticism, by stirring up the feeling of which we ourselves 
complain, but by recognizing that we are one people. If this Republic 
is to succeed, we are bound to become one people. A people of our 
own kind. Neither English, nor German, nor French, nor Italian, 
nor Swede, nor Norwegian, nor Jew, nor Pole, but one nation. We 
must have a type of our own. You may see it now. When you watch 
our men in uniform go down the avenue you will see an eye, a chin, a 
nose and a forehead that is American. If we are to succeed at all, it 
will be by sinking our race prejudice and creating one American type. 
(Great Applause.) 

15 



015 910 807 7 



f 



619 
N32 
opy 1 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



015 910 807 7 



Metal Edge, Inc. 2007 RAX 



